Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Golden Applesauce]

So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.

Wait, what? Where's Phox trolling you?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Phox isn't posturing to increase her status either, where are you getting this?

I'm having trouble figuring out what you're getting at myself, and I'm actually sober for once.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So because a word is gender nonspecific, it is dehumanizing? Are you retarded or something?

You know that skit where a guy is trying to indicate to the foil a specific person at a bar, going through attire, what the person is eating, facial expression, into increasingly abstract characteristics, that ends fifteen minutes later with "Oh! Why didn't you just say '300lb black transvestite?" The first layer of the joke, of course, is that the first guy can't use the obvious markers because that would embarrass the person in question. The second layer is that the guy is trying to be sensitive, but his actions only make sense in the context that being overweight is shameful, being black is shameful, not being appropriately gendered is shameful - he therefore reveals that he isn't actually being tolerant, he's just being polite about his prejudices. Using politcally correct phrasing for no other reason than because it's politically correct phrasing amounts to the same thing.

When we're talking about a hypothetical person, where gender isn't a relevant part of the abstraction, gender nonspecific words make sense. When talking about a collection of people of mixed gender, using a gender nonspecific word makes sense. Otherwise, use the commonly used word . Describing Amelia Earhart with the archaic term "aviatrix" instead of "aviator" or "pilot" might be more technically correct, but it's so bizarre that it forces people out of the context of the Wikipedia article.

Okay, neither of those two points really addressed your question. Can you accept that I'm not good at this, and maybe try to meet me halfway? Restating your position and then rhetorically asking if I'm retarded is not conducive to discussion.

I think I am kind of seeing your point, and I agree with it from a certain specific perspective, which I am pretty sure is the one you are coming from; that refusing to use accurate descriptors when they are relevant can be an indicator of rejecting what those descriptors illustrate. However, the key here is "relevant"; the gender or sex of your airline attendant is no more relevant than their marital status, and in a society with heavy gender bias, gendered job titles provides an instant "marker" to apply to the person of lower status.

[Golden Applesauce]

GA- you're not really making a lot of sense.

Coming up with gender neutral words is for the opposite reason of dehumanizing. It's supposed to take gender assumptions out of the equations entirely. You expect a stewardess to be female, and possibly join the mile high club with you. That's the trope right? Flight attendant can be anyone.

When there are gender assumptions, I agree completely. When talking about an actual instance of a person whose gender is known, though,  it just feels... awkward. Are you doing a steward a favor by referring to him as a "flight attendant"? In cases where either the gendered or non-gendered version is significantly more "natural" than the other, I prefer to go with that. Not that gender assumptions aren't important, but that they should be weighed against clarity and flow of communication.

(steward/stewardess/flight attendant isn't really the best example for this, because as Nigel pointed out, "stewardess" exists for no other reason than that somebody thought that "steward" wasn't gender-y enough. I'd prefer "steward" [kinda old fashioned] or just "flight staff" [modern and punchier.])

You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.

But that's exactly it - using the an awkward, constructed word indicates what they do is an embarrassment, but you don't care enough to find a good word for it. The example that I see most often in real life is "janitor" -> "sanitation worker/engineer". Everybody knows that a "sanitation engineer" who spends most of his time at a fast food restaurant is a janitor, because an actual sanitation engineer does things involving improving making food processing safer or managing reservoir infrastructure. Giving him a pumped up and obviously fake title just makes the actual social status even more pronounced. If you actually wanted to make the position sound more respectable, you'd use something like positive like "caretaker" or "steward". "Sanitation engineer" to describe a janitor just says that management is aware that you're a peon, but hopes that you'll be distracted by a wonky title enough that you won't ask for anything that costs real money, like a raise or training.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.

I'm going to agree with GA on this one. She's asking questions and genuinely interested in learning, a lot like Roger has been doing. She's posed a lot of questions that actually need answers, and which HAVE answers, and has been open to absorbing and discussing other views. Not knowing, and being open to ask questions that may expose your ignorance, is not retarded; in fact, it's pretty much the opposite of that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

I suspect she was asking because, in this society, most mothers raising boys have a different perspective on the emotional/intellectual harm their boys are subject to, than mothers who are raising girls only. As a mother of a boy, it's heartbreaking seeing him indoctrinated into the dominant culture, and working against it is an uphill battle. The harm patriarchy does to boys is very visible from a mother's perspective.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But maybe calling her a "harpy" would be appropiate?

Or, possibly, if you are calling an asshole out for bad behavior in most situations, it's appropriate to leave any personal insults or namecalling out of it and just address the behavior.

JUST A THOUGHT.

And if it's the kind of situation where namecalling is actually appropriate, maybe stick with "asshole", as in "That behavior makes you look like an asshole, and if you willfully continue it even after many people have spoken to you about it I am forced to conclude you are an asshole".

Yep and yep.

"Harpies" are ALWAYS female. It's just a G-rated version of "cunt".

[Freeky]

Nigel, that may be true, but he has a habit of being contrary just to be contrary, and pedantic.  I'm glad this is not one of those times.

[Golden Applesauce]

I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

I was born in 1990, so most of the plane trips I remember were post 9/11 airline industry crash. There was nothing sexy about airlines then, unless being dominated by security turned you on. You filed into your seats and tried not to make any funny moves or say anything that the deaf lady might mistake as violent-sounding. There's no money for any actual service - a flight attendant might bring you a tiny bag of peanuts if you were lucky, for a total of one interaction. I have no idea what they were doing the rest of the flight.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

GA- you're not really making a lot of sense.

Coming up with gender neutral words is for the opposite reason of dehumanizing. It's supposed to take gender assumptions out of the equations entirely. You expect a stewardess to be female, and possibly join the mile high club with you. That's the trope right? Flight attendant can be anyone.

When there are gender assumptions, I agree completely. When talking about an actual instance of a person whose gender is known, though,  it just feels... awkward. Are you doing a steward a favor by referring to him as a "flight attendant"? In cases where either the gendered or non-gendered version is significantly more "natural" than the other, I prefer to go with that. Not that gender assumptions aren't important, but that they should be weighed against clarity and flow of communication.

(steward/stewardess/flight attendant isn't really the best example for this, because as Nigel pointed out, "stewardess" exists for no other reason than that somebody thought that "steward" wasn't gender-y enough. I'd prefer "steward" [kinda old fashioned] or just "flight staff" [modern and punchier.])

I think you are doing the flight attendant a favor. Like I said, back in the day it was like, "what, too effeminate/inept to be a pilot?"

You get the same thing with jobs that are considered kinda crappy. You don't say someone works in the sewer system, you say they're sanitation workers. It's supposed to afford some sort of respect because the previous common word for it has a lot of assumptions attached to them.

But that's exactly it - using the an awkward, constructed word indicates what they do is an embarrassment, but you don't care enough to find a good word for it. The example that I see most often in real life is "janitor" -> "sanitation worker/engineer". Everybody knows that a "sanitation engineer" who spends most of his time at a fast food restaurant is a janitor, because an actual sanitation engineer does things involving improving making food processing safer or managing reservoir infrastructure. Giving him a pumped up and obviously fake title just makes the actual social status even more pronounced. If you actually wanted to make the position sound more respectable, you'd use something like positive like "caretaker" or "steward". "Sanitation engineer" to describe a janitor just says that management is aware that you're a peon, but hopes that you'll be distracted by a wonky title enough that you won't ask for anything that costs real money, like a raise or training.
[/quote]

Everyone gets a bullshit title though. I'm a data coordinator, whatever the hell that means. Usually I hear custodian over sanitation worker for a janitor.

[Juana]

I know little about managing appearance and nothing about makeup; if I notice the makeup someone is wearing, it probably means they put it on wrong. A t-shirt that says "There, now I'm not naked any more" is pretty standard among my friends. I do appreciate it when other people put effort into their appearance, though. A total stranger took time out of their day just to be easier on my eyes while grocery shopping. I imagine that if I actually knew enough about makeup recognize a good makeup job, I'd have some first-impression respect for anyone who demonstrated genuine talent in wearing their makeup.

There is no wrong way to put in make up; there is only artful and sloppy. Fifteen year old with massive amounts of makeup? Probably sloppy. Ru Paul's drag queens? Art for your face. That shit takes skill. Also, if there was a "right" way to put on makeup, who are you to determined what that way is?
And no one took time out of their day to look pretty for you.

[Golden Applesauce]

Did the single working mom thing for years. I think I was pretty typical. No affordable daycare or afterschool program, low income, crappy job punching a cash register, swing shift, no child support.

...

Me: I've been here five years now. Kristi started six months ago and you've got her working days. She doesn't have kids. I have two and nobody to watch them and they always get in fights. I get calls from the cops and I have to leave work because the kids are fighting again. Why do you still have me on nights? They told me when I started that it goes by seniority.

Boss: Kristi's still in high school. She has school in the morning. Finding somebody to watch the kids is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Translation: Boss works days and usually left not long after I came in. Kristi is not quite legal and boss liked ogling her ass.

Thank Bob for fortune telling, wish I'd found it 20 years earlier.

How does this hurt men? While it was happening, not at all. I think there's a lot of dads who are going to end up lonely old men with a house reeking of the coffee can full of piss under the bed, eating Spaghetti-O's out of the can, though. Fuck 'em.

Are either of your children male?

Also, as far as this goes:

Wut?

I suspect she was asking because, in this society, most mothers raising boys have a different perspective on the emotional/intellectual harm their boys are subject to, than mothers who are raising girls only. As a mother of a boy, it's heartbreaking seeing him indoctrinated into the dominant culture, and working against it is an uphill battle. The harm patriarchy does to boys is very visible from a mother's perspective.

That works too, but I was more thinking along the lines of boys benefiting from mothers, so anything the patriarchy does to make motherhood more difficult is directly sabotaging its own next generation.

Since it might be relevant here - I am male. You post one picture scraped off Myspace in Spagbook....